1986 PLP 1483 (CLC)

‑‑‑Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 21(1)‑‑Increase of rent‑‑Effect on requirement in good faith‑‑Bona fide need for children‑‑Proof‑‑Mere increase of rent by landlady did not show that she did not require premises in good faith‑‑Circumstances of each case were to be taken into consideration‑ Simply because parties agreed to increase rent, held, was no ground for dismissing eviction application of landlady‑‑Finding of Rent Controller that house in occupation of tenant was required in good faith for use and occupation of children of landlady, held, was not contrary to facts proved by unrebutted evidence Nirza Moazzam Baig for Appellant. Sher Afghan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th September. 1985. The appellant seeks to challenge the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on 23‑2‑1984, by which he allowed the application moved by the respondent for the eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application for the eviction of the appellant from the first floor of Plot No.69/B Mohammad Ali Housing Society, Karachi where she is residing as her tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.1,

000. According to the respondent landlady the accommodation in ground floor is not sufficient for her requirement and for requirement of her children. Her two sons are of marriageable age and their marriages are held up for want of accommodation. She requested the appellant to vacate the house but she failed to do so. In the written statement the appellant has states] that the accommodation in possession of the landlady is sufficient for the requirement of her family. She denied that the two sons of the applicant are of marriageable age. Two issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller. The respondent landlady filed her affidavit and the affidavit of her son lmtiaz Zaidi. According to these witnesses the three children of the respondent are grown up. The accommodation in their occupation consists of two bedrooms and one dining and drawing room. One son is a doctor and he is occupying a room. The other son is Engineer and he is living in the dining room and second bedroom is occupied by the landlady and her grown up daughter, who was studying in a medical college when the application was filed but according to the learned counsel for the respondent now she has become doctor. The appellant in her evidence tried to show that a Bungalow' No.70/B in the same vicinity was lying vacant and she could occupy that house. The other contentions of the respondent landlady about the marriage of the children and insufficient accommodation have been denied. The appellant has filed a copy of the Conveyance Deed which A was executed by the respondent with one Mohammad .Siddiq and sold out the house to Mohammad Siddiq for consideration. On the basis of this deed the learned counsel has stated that it shows that the respondent had another accommodation which could be occupied by her but instead of occupying the same she disposed it off. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the sale of the house mentioned in the deed but submitted that the said house was already in occupation of the tenant and it was not lying vacant. This contention finds support from the recital of the deed wherein it has been specifically stated that the vendee has been and is in occupation and possession of the said property as vendor's tenant. This contention has not been disputed, therefore, the contention raised by the appellant that House 70/B was lying vacant is incorrect.

3. As regards the contention that the ground floor of the house bearing No.69/B was got vacated by the respondent and now she is putting up with her family on the ground floor; the explanation by the landlady is that according to the medical advice she had to shift to the ground floor and her tenant occupied the upper floor.

4. The third contention raised by the learned counsel is that the rent was increased from time to time which shows the mala fide intention of landlady. Initially the premises was let out for Rs.650 in 1973 but the rent was increased in 1981 as Rs.1,000 and during the intervals rent was also increased. Mere increase of rent by the landlady does not show that she does not require the premises in good faith. It is the circumstances of each case which is to be taken into consideration and simply because the parties agreed to increase the rent is no ground for dismissing the application of the landlady. The admitted feature of the case is that the two sons of the respondent are grown up one is Doctor and the other is Engineer and, therefore, the contention of the respondent landlady that they could not be married as sufficient accommodation is not available is borne out from the record. The daughter is also grown up and the explanation of the accommodation in their occupation has been given by the landlady and the witnesses and these contentions have not been disputed. It is stated that the respondent is in occupation of three rooms but there is nothing to prove this fact There is sufficient evidence to show the bona fide of the landlady and in such circumstances the finding of the Rent Controller that the house in occupation of the appellant is required by the landlady for use and occupation of her children is not contrary to the facts. The appeal has no force which is hereby dismissed. The appellant is allowed two months time to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute. There will be no order as to costs. By a short order dated 29‑9‑1985, I had dismissed the appeal. The above are the reasons for the same. H. B. T. Appeal dismissed,